POWER RANKINGS
17 Chicago White Sox -
The losses of Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez were heavy -- as are the extended injury woes of the Big Hurt -- but a veteran rotation keeps them in the mix.

Soooooo, losing Ordonez (Who played 52 games and had less RBIs then friggen Jason Giambi) hurts us, but getting him doesn't help the Tigers?

Jabroni

02-16-2005, 01:59 AM

I stopped reading when the author talked about how good of an acquisition Millwood was for the Indians. Did the Indians also sign Leo Mazzone to be their pitching coach? Cuz that's the only way Millwood will have success. :rolleyes:

FightingBillini

02-16-2005, 02:00 AM

Wow. Mauer and Morneau will be the best at their positions IF THEY ARENT ALREADY???
Pudge Rodriguez? Posada? Martinez? Nah, give me Mauer, he of the 3 knee surguries. He should be a staple behind the plate for years.

Konerko? Teixiera? Helton? No, Morneau is the best first baseman in baseball. What and absolute joke.

santo=dorf

02-16-2005, 02:09 AM

If Carlos was still with the Sox, he would go unnoticed by the media. We trade him, and then we can't stop reading about how this franchise will suffer without him.:rolleyes:

Dodgers 16th ??? :?: I like how CBS ranks the Reds 15th overall, yet SI thought the Reds had the worst pitching staff in the NL. :nuts:

santo=dorf

02-16-2005, 02:10 AM

Pudge?

Carlton Fisk retired years ago. :smokin:

FightingBillini

02-16-2005, 02:21 AM

Carlton Fisk retired years ago. :smokin:

RODRIGUEZ

Jabroni

02-16-2005, 02:22 AM

RODRIGUEZHe meant that there is only one true "Pudge."

FightingBillini

02-16-2005, 02:31 AM

He meant that there is only one true "Pudge."

Fair enough, but would you rather I cann him I-Rod?:D:

Jabroni

02-16-2005, 02:42 AM

Fair enough, but would you rather I cann him I-Rod?:D:Sure, the "I" can stand for injured (I hope).

Wanne

02-16-2005, 02:56 AM

I wouldn't be too concerned about any power rankings just yet. Nobody's given the Sox any love this off season....plus they say, "LOSING" CLee and Maggs...lose is kind of an ardent term. They really didn't lose them. They traded Carlos on their terms and receive something back. As for Maggs...they'd already "lost" him last year.

nccwsfan

02-16-2005, 06:33 AM

Means nothing until the games are played. Rank the White Sox 30th for all I care- once the games are played they'll climb their way towards the top.

Time to fly under the radar- ST is about to begin!

Jerko

02-16-2005, 08:53 AM

Sure, the "I" can stand for injured (I hope).

Or it can stand for "implicated"

MUsoxfan

02-16-2005, 09:22 AM

This is why I love preseason predictions and "power rankings". If you look back at the end of the year, it's laughable to see how wrong they all are

Jurr

02-16-2005, 09:33 AM

These people are numbskulls. They had the Steelers ranked 24 at the beginning of the season and put them up to 2 in 4 weeks. I am friends with a lot of people in the sports media business, and it's extremely surprising how little they actually know about sports. Now, there's always going to be a Peter Gammons or a Roger Angell out there, but for the most part, these media guys don't have a clue. They pick teams based on last year's performance, and they go with the 'trendy' teams. Don't waste your time with this crap.

jabrch

02-16-2005, 09:35 AM

Sure, the "I" can stand for injured (I hope).

or it can stand for "I am a steroid user"

MRKARNO

02-16-2005, 09:45 AM

The White Sox probably will be underranked by a lot of prognosticators due to the "under-the-radar" nature of their moves this offseason. The biggest names were Jermaine Dye and Orlando Hernandez in an offsesaon that saw Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson, Sammy Sosa, Carlos Beltran, Richie Sexson, Adrian Beltre, Matt Clement, etc change teams. It is inevitable that they wont get all of the publicity as you have to see the sum total of all of their moves and compare them to last year in order to see how much better a team than last year this is. Most sportswriters are simply unable to take some time and research what they write.

Gremlin3

02-16-2005, 10:22 AM

I don't agree with many of the rankings. Especially the Indians. I didn't think they made that many good moves. I don't see how the cardinals can be 3rd. They picked up Mulder, but lost Williams, Matheny & Renteria.

spawn

02-16-2005, 10:47 AM

If Carlos was still with the Sox, he would go unnoticed by the media. We trade him, and then we can't stop reading about how this franchise will suffer without him.:rolleyes:

Bingo! This is what's killing my about these so-called prognosticators. Where was all of this CLee love the last couple of years? As far as losing Maggs goes, well we didn't have him or Frank for half of the season last year. As far as improving the team goes, I'll go by what players we ended the season with to what we'll begin this season with.

NonetheLoaiza

02-16-2005, 10:59 AM

I don't understand how the Cubs can be ranked 8th. I mean, they lost Sosa and Alou, and replaced them with who? A bunch of phooey...

Gremlin3

02-16-2005, 12:51 PM

They're only ranked 8th because they are expecting everyone else to perform up to their potential and stay healthy. If there are any injuries in the outfield they are in major trouble.

NSSoxFan

02-16-2005, 01:08 PM

I continue to be puzzled as to why some WSIers talk about how the media doesn't know anything, and then when something like this comes out they all freak out. WHO CARES. Is cbssportsline having us at 17 going to pre-determine our season??? Geez, everyone needs to calm down and remember why they play the games.

TheBull19

02-16-2005, 01:40 PM

I don't see how the cardinals can be 3rd. They picked up Mulder, but lost Williams, Matheny & Renteria.

Eckstein
Walker
Pujols
Rolen
Edmonds
Sanders
Grudzelanik
Molina

They've still got a solid rotation and one the best bullpens in the NL - I think they'll win a few games this year

NonetheLoaiza

02-16-2005, 02:18 PM

I continue to be puzzled as to why some WSIers talk about how the media doesn't know anything, and then when something like this comes out they all freak out. WHO CARES. Is cbssportsline having us at 17 going to pre-determine our season??? Geez, everyone needs to calm down and remember why they play the games.

I don't know if its so much freaking out that we are not getting any recognition, its that most of these writers seem to not know what they are writing about. It's just like they throw at a dartboard and make up these rankings. I guess this kind of writing is just to entertain and spark up conversation, but I know of dozens of people on these boards that can write up better articles and better power rankings off the top of their heads than some of these writers can after doing "research". I mean, it should be taken with a grain of salt, but some of the articles these writers write don't make a whole lot of sense (I'm looking at you Rob Neyer)...

patbooyah

02-16-2005, 03:12 PM

and lets all think back to what the bulls' preseason power ranking was... probably not indicative of a playoff team!:cool:

NSSoxFan

02-16-2005, 03:16 PM

and lets all think back to what the bulls' preseason power ranking was... probably not indicative of a playoff team!:cool:

Do you guys remember all the predictions before the 2002 season? Yea, everyone had the Angels down as sure fire champs. And then the next season, all the writers knew that the Marlins were going to beat the Yankees.

zach074

02-16-2005, 03:17 PM

I don't think I speak just for my self when I say that i can not wait for this team to shut the media up.:supernana:

RKMeibalane

02-16-2005, 03:19 PM

I don't see what the big deal is here. I would much rather see the Sox fly under the radar and shock everyone (2000) than I would see them enter the season with high expectations and not meet them.

santo=dorf

02-16-2005, 03:56 PM

Fair enough, but would you rather I cann him I-Rod?:D:
Yes.

Gremlin3

02-16-2005, 05:06 PM

Eckstein
Walker
Pujols
Rolen
Edmonds
Sanders
Grudzelanik
Molina

They've still got a solid rotation and one the best bullpens in the NL - I think they'll win a few games this year

I'm not saying that they're awful. I just don't think they're going to be as good as everyone believes they will be. I don't think they'll be able to repeat what they did last year.

JB98

02-16-2005, 05:19 PM

I just want to make the point that the Cubs were ranked #1 in those power rankings at this same time last year. That shows how meaningless this crap is.

I'm admittedly not as optimistic about the Sox as some on this board are, but we'll find out where things stand once the games begin.

OurBitchinMinny

02-16-2005, 05:36 PM

Who really cares what the media thinks? If I was unattached, Id probably be thinking the same thing. They have replaced some good guys with some huge question marks. They replaced question marks with other question marks. The respect has to be earned during the season. People keep taking it personally. This sox team has done nothing. The past sox teams have done nothing but underachieve.

PAPChiSox729

02-16-2005, 06:09 PM

Who really cares what the media thinks? If I was unattached, Id probably be thinking the same thing. They have replaced some good guys with some huge question marks. They replaced question marks with other question marks. The respect has to be earned during the season. People keep taking it personally. This sox team has done nothing. The past sox teams have done nothing but underachieve.

Exactly. I mean we as fans should be optimistic about the season, but this team has a lot to prove not only to us, but to the rest of baseball as well. This team can be very good if everything comes together. But if things fall apart, then this will be an ugly, ugly season.

Stroker Ace

02-17-2005, 12:46 AM

All the major media networks don't care about the Sox.

maurice

02-17-2005, 01:16 PM

The cards can afford to drop off somewhat. They'd still remain one of the top teams in the league.

In this cubtastic town, it's easy to forget that the 2004 Cards:
- Lead the NL in runs scored
- Lead the NL in OPS
- Finished 2nd in MLB in ERA (0.01 behind Atlanta)
- Won the most games in MLB (105)
- Won their division by the most games in MLB (+13)
Meanwhile, the "World Series Lock" cubs finished third in the NL Central, and their current roster is significantly worse than at the start of the 2004 season.

The cards, cubs, and 'stros also continue to benefit from an unbalanced schedule loaded with games against the Reds, Pirates, and Brewers.

T-Bone

02-17-2005, 02:35 PM

The cards, cubs, and 'stros also continue to benefit from an unbalanced schedule loaded with games against the Reds, Pirates, and Brewers.

Actually, it could be argued that the Pirates/Reds could have competed in the weaker NL East/NL West.

Cincinnati: vs. EAST: 18-12 vs. WEST 15-15

Pittsburgh: vs. EAST: 17-14 vs. WEST 16-14

Those are the only below .500 teams in the entire National League with winning records against the other divisions (The mets had a winning record against the West, but a losing record against the Central).

I actually think the NL Central was pretty darn good last year. However, it looks like their top three didn't improve. Milwaukee/Cincinnati should be a bit better. Who knows with Pittsburgh.

Whitesox029

02-17-2005, 03:46 PM

Wow. Mauer and Morneau will be the best at their positions IF THEY ARENT ALREADY???
Pudge Rodriguez? Posada? Martinez? Nah, give me Mauer, he of the 3 knee surguries. He should be a staple behind the plate for years.

Konerko? Teixiera? Helton? No, Morneau is the best first baseman in baseball. What and absolute joke.
If you're talking about the MLB then you've left out Pujols. He was talking about the AL, but I would take Ortiz, Konerko, Sweeney or Palmiero over Morneau any day.

DaleJRFan

02-17-2005, 05:16 PM

Fair enough, but would you rather I cann him I-Rod?:D:

Maybe I-Roid instead of I-Rod

Chisox003

02-17-2005, 05:23 PM

If you're talking about the MLB then you've left out Pujols. He was talking about the AL, but I would take Ortiz, Konerko, Sweeney or Palmiero over Morneau any day.

I could understand if he ranked us lower than the Twins, but putting us in the same neighborhood with the O's, Tigers, D-Backs, Pirates, and Brewers is a bit absurd.

Instructions for life:

1. Drink plenty of water
2. Get plenty of exercise
3. Surround yourself with good friends and family
4. Never read anything from ESPN

Over By There

02-18-2005, 01:58 PM

I saw that too. I decided not to post the link because I was unable at the time to control my anger. I didn't hold Olney in very high regard before, certainly not now. This ranking is just ignorant. :rolleyes:

HebrewHammer

02-18-2005, 01:58 PM

Who is Buster Olney and why should I care what he thinks about the White Sox?

Baby Fisk

02-18-2005, 02:00 PM

Who is Buster Olney and why should I care what he thinks about the White Sox?

You shouldn't care.

*goes to get a drink of water*

OzzieBall

02-18-2005, 02:05 PM

Due to my posting goofy Dan Shanoff's ranking a couple of days ago, I felt I had broght enough negative ESPN BS into WSI, so on reading Olney's rankings I decided to just let it stew and not post anything here.

But, if he truly believes those rankings then he must have us finishing fourth behind the Twins, Indians and Tigers. Insane.

I love the Sport's Guy on ESPN even though its all Red Sox crap, but other than that ESPN is going to get the old heave-ho. What a bunch of fools

Willl

The Racehorse

02-18-2005, 02:08 PM

Who is Buster Olney and why should I care what he thinks about the White Sox?

Your half right.

With the exception of the media-darlings (Yankees, Mets, BoSox, SCrubs, Cardinals), Buster Olney couldn't find a team on the baseball map if he was using GPS.

Other than that, he's working for the biggest game in town.

mweflen

02-18-2005, 02:20 PM

Placing the Cubs at 7 shows his delusional state. This is a team that placed 3rd in their division last season (16 behind cards, 3 behind astros), has no closer, AND lost their top two power hitters, their number 3 rotation guy, and replaced them with Jerry Hairston and Jeromy Burnitz. Say WHAAA??!?!?

:bong:

Based on their question marks and their strengths, both the Flubs and the Sox should be around No. 12-15 or so on his list - Indians thru Phillies territory.

MushMouth

02-18-2005, 02:35 PM

UNDER THE RADAR!!!!!!!

:cool:

This is a true "Us against the world" year for this team. I'm really, truly excited.

Maybe I should email Brooks and see if he'll use a video of a radar w/ a sox symbol flying incognito across the mlb!

OurBitchinMinny

02-18-2005, 02:42 PM

I saw that too. I decided not to post the link because I was unable at the time to control my anger. I didn't hold Olney in very high regard before, certainly not now. This ranking is just ignorant. :rolleyes:

Ive said it a million times, but there is nothing you can do about it. He is entitled to his opinion. The sox have to prove everyone wrong on the field

Baby Fisk

02-18-2005, 02:58 PM

This is a true "Us against the world" year for this team. I'm really, truly excited.

Can anyone recall a season when expectations for the Sox were not just low, but the rest of baseball seemed completely oblivious to the team? It's starting to feel like the Sox are just a figment of our imaginations... :?:

RKMeibalane

02-18-2005, 02:58 PM

Who cares what ESPN thinks? The Sox could go 162-0, and people would still make fun of them. Let's try to avoid getting worked up over preseason rankings. The Sox have, in the past, been picked to win their division, and each time this happened, they didn't win the division. I would much rather see them come out of nowhere as they did five years ago than I would see them dissapoint us again.

RKMeibalane

02-18-2005, 03:01 PM

Can anyone recall a season when expectations for the Sox were not just low, but the rest of baseball seemed completely oblivious to the team? It's starting to feel like the Sox are just a figment of our imaginations... :?:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/darth.jpg

*Waves hand* "The Chicago White Sox do not exist."

<ESPN Writer> "The Chicago White Sox do not exist."

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/darth.jpg

"They are a figment of your imagination."

<ESPN Writer> "They are a figment of my imagination."

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/darth.jpg

"You know nothing."

<ESPN Writer> "I know nothing."

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/darth.jpg

"You may leave now."

<ESPN Writer> "I may leave now."

SoxSpeed22

02-18-2005, 03:10 PM

Instructions for life:

1. Drink plenty of water
2. Get plenty of exercise
3. Surround yourself with good friends and family
4. Never read anything from ESPNIt's definitely more than a coincidence that we are being written off by everyone but 21st? that could be worst case scenario for us. Here are the overrated teams in those rankings. + means how higher they are than they should be
Marlins (3+), Cubs (2+), Mets (5+), Padres (1+), Indians (4+), Mariners (12+), Tigers (2+), Diamondbacks (3+), Blue Jays (2+). But what do you expect from Red Sox Yankees World Network?

NSSoxFan

02-18-2005, 03:10 PM

Is it April 4th yet?

RKMeibalane

02-18-2005, 03:13 PM

Is it April 4th yet?

Uhhhhhh... nope.

NSSoxFan

02-18-2005, 03:16 PM

Uhhhhhh... nope.

I really wish it was April 4th.

What, ESPN thinks that the Sox have no chance?
:chickenlittle

santo=dorf

02-18-2005, 03:34 PM

4. Florida Marlins (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=fla): They could be very, very good -- but they'll only go as far as Josh Beckett, A.J. Burnett and Guillermo Mota lead them. Who cares how good they "could" they could be? Mota had an ERA of 4.81 with the Marlins, Beckett and Burnett are the kings of the DL, they replace Pavano with Lieter, and they didn't replace Benitez.

11. San Diego Padres (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=sdg): They didn't make any big offseason acquisitions, but they did improve their bench and added Dave Roberts to play center field.
WOW!
12. Cleveland Indians (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=cle): They're going to rack up a lot of runs, and if they can hold leads, they should be able to win a lot of games this season.
Great "expert" analysis there. Which team doesn't that apply to?
14. Seattle Mariners (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/clubhouse?team=sea): They've added some power in the middle of their batting order in Adrian Beltre and Richie Sexson, and now they desperately need to get some healthy arms on their staff.
But that still puts them in the upper half of the MLB? :?:

Just another clueless East Coast writer. :rolleyes:

California Sox

02-18-2005, 03:47 PM

Why do people post Power Rankings? Especially during the season? There's a fool-proof barometer of which teams are good: It's called the Standings! Man, I can't wait for the season to begin!

RKMeibalane

02-18-2005, 03:49 PM

Why do people post Power Rankings? Especially during the season? There's a fool-proof barometer of which teams are good: It's called the Standings! Man, I can't wait for the season to begin!

I don't think ESPN can handle the idea of there being a thirty-way tie for first.

Win1ForMe

02-18-2005, 03:52 PM

The interesting part about all these prediction blurbs or power rankings is they always mention us losing CLee or Maggs but then only list about half of our off-season acquisitions (i.e. Hernandez, Hermanson, and AJ in this case). What happened to Dye, Podsednik, Iguchi, and Luis Vizcaino?

And I completely don't understand all of the love given to the Indians. They were an 80 win team, and because they added a guy with a 4.85 ERA in the NL, they're somehow a pre-season media darling? Their bullpen still blows and one could argue that their hitters over-achieved or hit their peaks last year. I don't see how Hafner could improve on his .993 OPS, don't bank on Belliard or Blake having career years again, and would assume the losses of Lawton and Vizquel will hurt no matter how well Jhonny Peralta has played in the minors.

Iwritecode

02-18-2005, 04:08 PM

The interesting part about all these prediction blurbs or power rankings is they always mention us losing CLee or Maggs but then only list about half of our off-season acquisitions (i.e. Hernandez, Hermanson, and AJ in this case). What happened to Dye, Podsednik, Iguchi, and Luis Vizcaino?

And I completely don't understand all of the love given to the Indians. They were an 80 win team, and because they added a guy with a 4.85 ERA in the NL, they're somehow a pre-season media darling? Their bullpen still blows and one could argue that their hitters over-achieved or hit their peaks last year. I don't see how Hafner could improve on his .993 OPS, don't bank on Belliard or Blake having career years again, and would assume the losses of Lawton and Vizquel will hurt no matter how well Jhonny Peralta has played in the minors.

Those are called facts. ESPN writers don't use them because they would get too confused. They just pick their favorite teams, stick them at the top and then throw the rest into a big hat and draw them out one by one...

PicktoCLick72

02-18-2005, 04:17 PM

I didn't realize how ugly Olney is. I bet he has no friends.

MRKARNO

02-18-2005, 04:23 PM

Buster Olney won't let facts get in the way of his analyses. The White Sox 21st? The Oakland A's 18th and last in the West? The Mets, a team that won only 71 games last year in 10th? Seattle, a team that won 63 games last year in 14th with their great pitching staff? The Marlins, an 83 win team last year only worse than the Yanks, Bosox and Cards? These rankings are absolute crap. Don't waste your time being mad at these rankings because Olney's ignorance is only exceeded by his idiocy.

Ol' No. 2

02-18-2005, 04:25 PM

Those are called facts. ESPN writers don't use them because they would get too confused. They just pick their favorite teams, stick them at the top and then throw the rest into a big hat and draw them out one by one...http://espn.go.com/i/columnists/olney_buster_c.jpg Facts? I'm not familiar with the concept. How does one get these "facts"? Does it require any work? It does? Oh, forget it, then.

southsideirish71

02-18-2005, 04:29 PM

http://espn.go.com/i/columnists/olney_buster_c.jpg Facts? I'm not familiar with the concept. How does one get these "facts"? Does it require any work? It does? Oh, forget it, then.

Why get worked up with a guy who goes by the handle of buster. His parents must of longed for those fun days of the 1920's.

The Racehorse

02-18-2005, 04:30 PM

I don't think it's been mentioned yet, but Buster Olney is based out of NYC. Hearing him in the mornings on ESPN's Mike & Mike to talk MLB, he comes across as oblivious to teams that aren't the Yankees, Mets & Red Sox.

I realize that isn't saying much. :D:

santo=dorf

02-18-2005, 04:31 PM

"if they can hold leads, they should be able to win a lot of games this season."

http://familypledge.org/madden.jpg
"That's some great analysis there. They don't call us 'experts' for nothing!"

JRIG

02-18-2005, 04:33 PM

I didn't realize how ugly Olney is. I bet he has no friends.

Oh my God.

People,

:whocares

I never felt the need to use that before, but calm down, get off the ledge, and stop reading everything if you have to before April 4. Once again...A WRITER'S OPINION HAS NO ACTUAL IMPACT ON THE RESULTS OF THE 2005 SEASON.

maurice

02-18-2005, 05:11 PM

I have tolerance for a suggestion that the Sox might finish around .500 and in third place. However, anybody who confidently predicts that the Sox will finish in 4th place and (impliedly) significantly under .500 shows a complete ignorance of recent team history, recent division history, and the full impact of recent transactions. While a disasterous result is possible (almost anything is possible), it is pretty darn unlikely.

The Sox have been also-rans for a few years now, but they haven't finished below 3rd place or below .500. There's no obvious reason to predict that they will suddenly and precipitously decline this year.

Even the most pessimistic observer cannot reasonably deny that, since this time last year, the Sox at the very least:
- significantly improved their pitching depth by adding three veteran starters and two veteran relievers
- mostly offset the offensive "loss" of Lee, Valentin, and a part-season of Ordonez by adding Dye, Podsednik, Pierzynski, Iguchi, and Everett.
- added lots of speed and did not significantly decline defensively.

At least Buster's momma gave him an appropriate name. :cool:

santo=dorf

02-18-2005, 05:14 PM

I have tolerance for a suggestion that the Sox might finish around .500 and in third place. However, anybody who confidently predicts that the Sox will finish in 4th place and (impliedly) significantly under .500 shows a complete ignorance of recent team history, recent division history, and the full impact of recent transactions. While a disasterous result is possible (almost anything is possible), it is pretty darn unlikely.

The Sox have been also-rans for a few years now, but they haven't finished below 3rd place or below .500. There's no obvious reason to predict that they will suddenly and precipitously decline this year.

Even the most pessimistic observer cannot reasonably deny that, since this time last year, the Sox at the very least:
- significantly improved their pitching depth by adding three veteran starters and two veteran relievers
- mostly offset the offensive "loss" of Lee, Valentin, and a part-season of Ordonez by adding Dye, Podsednik, Pierzynski, Iguchi, and Everett.
- added lots of speed and did not significantly decline defensively.

At least Buster's momma gave him an appropriate name. :cool:

Agreed.

I would rather take Busta Rhymes' analysis over this clown from New York's.

Jerome

02-18-2005, 05:19 PM

Okay everyone, calm down. Besides the Tigers, Mets and Orioles, I don't see the big outrage with any of those teams finishing being picked ahead of us. Of course on paper we COULD finish way better than 21st, but so could most of those other teams.

I could see us winning the Central, but I could also see us coming in third. I could see us making the playoffs, but I could also see us finishing at about the 17th best team. Thats why every year there are a couple of suprise teams and why the games have to be played ON THE FIELD

Ol' No. 2

02-18-2005, 05:21 PM

Okay everyone, calm down. Besides the Tigers, Mets and Orioles, I don't see the big outrage with any of those teams finishing being picked ahead of us. Of course on paper we COULD finish way better than 21st, but so could most of those other teams.

I could see us winning the Central, but I could also see us coming in third. I could see us making the playoffs, but I could also see us finishing at about the 17th best team. Thats why every year there are a couple of suprise teams and why the games have to be played ON THE FIELDIt's not where he pick the Sox that sticks in my craw. It's the lazy journalism. He probably couldn't name 5 current roster players. I don't know how they get away with it. If I did my job like that I'd be eating cat food.

TheBull19

02-18-2005, 06:08 PM

14. Seattle Mariners
But that still puts them in the upper half of the MLB? :?:

I don't care if Beltre and Sexson hit 50 homers a piece, they're still a last place team with that pathetic pitching staff.

wsoxfan

02-18-2005, 06:31 PM

The first espn baseball power rankings are in and the have the White Sox at #21!!!! :angry: We're ranked right behind the Tigers, Orioles, and one in front on the Diamondbacks. I know we talk about "flying under the radar" but this is ridiculous. I'd post the link but I don't know how to, maybe it's cause I'm using mozilla but it won't let me copy and paste on here so if anyone knows how to post links let me know.

RKMeibalane

02-18-2005, 06:34 PM

The first espn baseball power rankings are in and the have the White Sox at #21!!!! :angry: We're ranked right behind the Tigers, Orioles, and one in front on the Diamondbacks. I know we talk about "flying under the radar" but this is ridiculous. I'd post the link but I don't know how to, maybe it's cause I'm using mozilla but it won't let me copy and paste on here so if anyone knows how to post links let me know.

*Sighs*

MeanFish

02-18-2005, 06:36 PM

As usual though, those rankings don't mean anything.

Fredsox

02-18-2005, 06:36 PM

The first espn baseball power rankings are in and the have the White Sox at #21!!!! :angry: We're ranked right behind the Tigers, Orioles, and one in front on the Diamondbacks. I know we talk about "flying under the radar" but this is ridiculous. I'd post the link but I don't know how to, maybe it's cause I'm using mozilla but it won't let me copy and paste on here so if anyone knows how to post links let me know.

By "Mozilla" I assume you mean the Firefox browser? Should be able to copy and paste links just fine. CTRL C and CTL V will get it done, if not restart the browser and try again. Sorry for the Help Desk reply, can't leave my work at work.

soxfan123

02-18-2005, 06:38 PM

I agree, our M.O. has always been to be the unspoken treasure, but #21??????? I know that even our own paper doesn't respect us, and let alone the national media, but this has gone too far. It will be sweet to laugh in their faces come October (hopefully). I guess the media REALLY hated that CLee trade..what a joke

NSSoxFan

02-18-2005, 06:38 PM

Anyone who is sick of people assuming our season is over because of what a writer predicts, please post here.

they think by rating us low and saying were not good enough, it will make us
play better and achieve great things.
i think its psychological.

also by pushing the cubs down americas throats, it puts pressure on the flubs and they fail.

that is what i believe.

Frankfan4life

02-18-2005, 06:57 PM

Can anyone recall a season when expectations for the Sox were not just low, but the rest of baseball seemed completely oblivious to the team? It's starting to feel like the Sox are just a figment of our imaginations... :?:

:roflmao:

I don't think the media wants the Sox to win the WS. They just invested in a media orgy over the BoSox. The media bought the BoSox curse thing, hook, line and sinker. They never stopped to ask Boston fans questions like, "Why do you feel you're cursed when two other MLB teams have been waiting for a WS win (or even just a trip to the WS) longer than you? Instead they prepetuated this curse myth until now it's got to be embarassing to admit that they gave that much attention to a team that ranked only third in WS futility.

JB98

02-18-2005, 07:03 PM

I agree, our M.O. has always been to be the unspoken treasure, but #21??????? I know that even our own paper doesn't respect us, and let alone the national media, but this has gone too far. It will be sweet to laugh in their faces come October (hopefully). I guess the media REALLY hated that CLee trade..what a joke

I hated the CLee trade too.

It seems like we are having a daily thread to bitch about the "disrespect" we get from the national press. We should combine them all into one thread and throw a nice, big pity party for ourselves.

Rankings mean nothing, guys. Stop taking it so personally.

ilsox7

02-18-2005, 07:10 PM

I'm amazed by how many people care about this crap. I cannot wait til this season starts in the hopes that people around here stop whining. But I am not sure if the season starting will help that.

Whitesox029

02-18-2005, 07:11 PM

Anyone who is sick of people assuming our season is over because of what a writer predicts, please post here.

April 4th, where are you?
I don't give a damn what these "journalists" are predicting. Remember that they all picked St. Louis to finish 3rd last year.

Blueprint1

02-18-2005, 07:12 PM

I don't really care I know we are better than this. I think its funny ESPN thinks we will end up in fourth place. If we don't win the division they will print articles about how we disappointed again this year even though they picked us to finish fourth.

idseer

02-18-2005, 07:12 PM

regardless of all that ...............

............. espn IS crap!

SoxFan76

02-18-2005, 07:19 PM

Ok, if the Sox are picked to finish behind the Twins, I don't care. If they are predicted to finish behind the Cubs, I don't care. Hell, even the Indians, I don't care. Mets? Orioles? Fine. But TWENTY-ONE?!?!? This is just ridiculous, and this man should be fired for his lack of research and lack of knowledge on the topic at hand. I don't put much stock into the rankings, but this is just out of line and unacceptable from a professional standpoint.

SoxFan76

02-18-2005, 07:20 PM

But TWENTY ONE!!! Come on now, I'm with you guys on this, but 21 is a little ridiculous. I just posted my rant in the other thread about this.

idiotAllDAWay

02-18-2005, 07:24 PM

there are no such things is experts evryone knows about the same, so don't get all worked up about it.

HomeFish

02-18-2005, 07:31 PM

People who are not drinking the JR kool-aid will look at the White Sox in terms of the reality of our situation, and, as such, will not fawn over them.

Jabroni

02-18-2005, 07:52 PM

People who are not drinking the JR kool-aid will look at the White Sox in terms of the reality of our situation, and, as such, will not fawn over them.Your problem is that you assume that anyone who is not pessimistic about the Sox like you are is just drinking the JR kool-aid. Not everyone that has some optimism is a JR-worshipper. Get a new gimmick.

iftypofixit

02-18-2005, 07:55 PM

Being ranked so far back will make it soo much sweeter when we win the central. Then we can all say "I told you so" to those "experts."

Ol' No. 2

02-18-2005, 08:00 PM

The first espn baseball power rankings are in and the have the White Sox at #21!!!! :angry: We're ranked right behind the Tigers, Orioles, and one in front on the Diamondbacks. I know we talk about "flying under the radar" but this is ridiculous. I'd post the link but I don't know how to, maybe it's cause I'm using mozilla but it won't let me copy and paste on here so if anyone knows how to post links let me know.Certainly Buster Olney's musings are real news, but can it have escaped your notice that there's already a 35-reply thread on this very subject. You can tell it's the same subject because its title is "Buster Olney loses mind, places Sox 21st in his Power Rankings".:o:

MRKARNO

02-18-2005, 08:01 PM

People who are not drinking the JR kool-aid will look at the White Sox in terms of the reality of our situation, and, as such, will not fawn over them.

Even a pessimist probably wouldnt predict less than 75 wins. A rational one at least and 21 would suggest probably closer to 70 wins. That was unfair, but we all know how Olney went about making the list in regards to the White Sox: He had gone about his list and then realized that he hadn't put the White Sox yet when he got to 21 so he just stuck them there and then just did a short "on the surface" overview of their moves to make it look like he gave a thought to the team.

T-Bone

02-18-2005, 08:09 PM

I'm not sure if this is a repeat or not, as this is a slightly older article, but anyway:

Predicted finish: 1st place, 90-72

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6841776/

Jabroni

02-18-2005, 08:14 PM

I posted this last week. By the way, you're not supposed to copy and paste an entire article here, just an excerpt.

T-Bone

02-18-2005, 08:15 PM

Ah, my apologies. Will delete.

Jabroni

02-18-2005, 08:16 PM

Ah, my apologies. Will delete.You don't have to delete it. Just leave the link and a smaller excerpt. Posting the entire article is a copyright infringement or something.

T-Bone

02-18-2005, 08:18 PM

err.

HebrewHammer

02-19-2005, 02:26 AM

err.

:welcome:

Well, then we should call you T-BONE. T-BONE! T-BONE! T-BONE!

T-Bone

02-19-2005, 04:33 AM

:welcome:

Well, then we should call you T-BONE. T-BONE! T-BONE! T-BONE!

Well the jerk store called and they're all out of you!

SoxSpeed22

02-20-2005, 03:03 PM

Even a pessimist probably wouldnt predict less than 75 wins. A rational one at least and 21 would suggest probably closer to 70 wins. That was unfair, but we all know how Olney went about making the list in regards to the White Sox: He had gone about his list and then realized that he hadn't put the White Sox yet when he got to 21 so he just stuck them there and then just did a short "on the surface" overview of their moves to make it look like he gave a thought to the team."White Sox Baseball: On full fledged stealth mode!"

SOXintheBURGH

02-20-2005, 03:52 PM

Well the jerk store called and they're all out of you!

"That's okay, you're they're all time best seller!"

"Oh yeah, Riley? I just had sex with your wife!"

"His wife's in a coma."

fusillirob1983

02-20-2005, 04:08 PM

"That's okay, you're they're all time best seller!"

"Oh yeah, Riley? I just had sex with your wife!"

"His wife's in a coma."

"The life support machine called...no"
....

"I got it!!!!!!"

johnny_mostil

02-20-2005, 04:45 PM

People who are not drinking the JR kool-aid will look at the White Sox in terms of the reality of our situation, and, as such, will not fawn over them.

Fawn? Nobody is fawning over the White Sox even in Chicago. They are too busy pretending the Indians and Tigers can sustain their improvement they got by getting career seasons from 27 to 31 year old players, pretending that the Mariners addressing two positions with enormous risks is going to add 25 games to their win column, and imagining that the Mets have really made huge strides.

Nobody fawned over the Braves last year but they kicked patootie. Nobody fawned over the Cardinals but they did too.

Sportswriters don't know anything, either...

flo-B-flo

02-20-2005, 05:21 PM

Yes. You mean I-Roid?:smile:

Fredsox

02-27-2005, 05:56 PM

So I'm flipping the channels this afternoon and I happen to catch a pre-season version of Baseball Tonight with Gammons, Ravetch, Reynolds,and Kruk (still pissed at him when he played for us).

They went around the 2 leagues with the question "What team in each division has had the best off season?".

To my surprise (or not) the said the Twins had the best off season because they're getting Mauer back and they signed Radke & Santanna. The Tigers were second based upon their signing of Ordonez, and the Indians were looked at a possible sleeper. No metion of either the Sox or the Royals. I'm not surprised too much about the Royals, but we were fairly active and I think deserving of at least a mention.

Then they went on to the AL West.

As a matter of course, they anointed that the entire AL season was between the Yankees and the Red Sox. Everyone else is playing for 3rd. Oh, and Kruk thinks the Cubs have what it takes to win championships with that "great pitching staff".

samram

02-27-2005, 06:11 PM

Eh, I listened to ESPN Radio yesterday and they had their baseball show on with Ravech and Phillips, and they didn't talk about them then either. I still don't know how anyone can think the Tigers are better than the Sox, but we've seen many examples this offseason of media people not researching or learning about teams anyhow, so I expect nothing more than ignorance. Not to mention, Ravech is damn near retarded. The hell with them- it's not worth the aggravation.

JUribe1989

02-27-2005, 06:24 PM

Gammons also didnt know the name of U.S. Cellular Field.

Ravech: Sammy Sosa will return to Chicago on the other side of town on May 12 at White Sox Park. What's the name of that park?

Gammons: "Shrugs Shoulders" I dunno.....

FightingBillini

02-27-2005, 06:25 PM

I am still baffled by the media and baseball "experts" calling the Cubs a good team. This is a team that only made the playoffs in 2003 because the Astros choked the last weekend. They only made the second round because they played the Braves, and Atlanta always chokes. They improved themselves marginally last offseason, and they were expected to go from a 88 win team to the world champs.
They had THE worst offseason of any team in baseball. They lost their best hitter and best pitcher from last season. Nobody was added that will come close to producing like Moist-hand and Clement did. They traded away Blowsa, and although he is steadily declining due to steroid testing, he would have been better than Jeromy Burnitz. Most importantly, they got NOTHING back in the trade. They got a career utility man and 2 marginal prospects. They didnt replace the production they lost in their outfield, and Ryan Leaf Patterson is still playing CF. He will break out any day now. Their bullpen was HORRIBLE last season, and it only got worse. They added nobody, and lost Merker. Their closer is RYAN DEMPSTER!!! It's shocking This team is expected to win 80 games, let alone the pennant. People talk about their "great" rotation, but I will go on record right now as saying our 2005 rotation will be better than theirs, and win more games. They have no bench, no bullpen, and the worst outfield in modern baseball history. But hey, they have what it takes to win!

I just find it baffling that a team who finished in 3rd place in its division last year, and got notably worse in the offseason can be picked as favorites for anything other than cellar dwellers. St. Louis finally has an ace in Mulder. Houston has arguably the best rotation in baseball with Clemens, Oswalt, Pettite and Backe, along with one of the best closers in the game. The Cubs MAY finish in second, but they have no shot at the wildcard.

TDog

02-27-2005, 06:25 PM

The White Sox had a great off-season in 1984. They got Julio Cruz back and added Tom Seaver to the league's best starting rotation. People said a lot of great things about the Sox before the 1984 season. By September the Cubs were suddenly America's team.

Don't worry about what people say in February.

lths06

02-27-2005, 06:30 PM

Arn't these the same guys who said the Cubs were going to win it all while the Sox were going to finish 4th or 4th in their division? Amazing how things never change...

JUribe1989

02-27-2005, 06:38 PM

Well here is how my baseball idiot list goes as of the end of that show
1.http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:znV--tMsX3kJ:sportsmed.starwave.com/media/mlb/2002/0705/photo/a_hunter_i.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/mlb/2002/0705/photo/a_hunter_i.jpg&imgrefurl=http://espn.go.com/mlb/columns/stark_jayson/1517868.html&h=262&w=195&sz=12&tbnid=znV--tMsX3kJ:&tbnh=106&tbnw=79&start=13&prev=/images%3Fq%3DTorii%2BHunter%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)
2.http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:JpcL8siWNFsJ:syntaxofthings.typepad.c om/syntax_of_things/gammons.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://syntaxofthings.typepad.com/syntax_of_things/gammons.gif&imgrefurl=http://syntaxofthings.typepad.com/syntax_of_things/2004/02/&h=261&w=175&sz=14&tbnid=JpcL8siWNFsJ:&tbnh=106&tbnw=71&start=3&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPeter%2BGammons%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)
3.http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:vvaJhG_OY7wJ:sehd.binghamton.edu/alumni/ravech.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://sehd.binghamton.edu/alumni/ravech.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sehd.binghamton.edu/alumni/alumninews.htm&h=234&w=162&sz=5&tbnid=vvaJhG_OY7wJ:&tbnh=104&tbnw=72&start=6&prev=/images%3Fq%3DKarl%2BRavech%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D)
4.http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:3gcbcSvsVfgJ:www.jimpoz.com/quotes/images/speakers/kruk.jpg (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/images/speakers/kruk.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.jimpoz.com/quotes/speaker.asp%3Fspeakerid%3D504&h=200&w=150&sz=8&tbnid=3gcbcSvsVfgJ:&tbnh=99&tbnw=74&start=4&prev=/images%3Fq%3DJohn%2BKruk%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D) "50 Games won by Randy Johnson...no problem!"

santo=dorf

02-27-2005, 06:42 PM

:boston
"Had Joe Mauer been healthy last year, the Twins' bullpen wouldn't have fallen apart in the ALDS, and they would've went to the World Series. Then Joe Mauer would've gotten the owners and players together and saved the NHL."

chisoxmike

02-27-2005, 06:46 PM

:boston
"Had Joe Mauer been healthy last year, the Twins' bullpen wouldn't have fallen apart in the ALDS, and they would've went to the World Series. Then Joe Mauer would've gotten the owners and players together and saved the NHL."

:roflmao:

Over By There

02-27-2005, 06:47 PM

Under the radar, folks.

PAPChiSox729

02-27-2005, 06:48 PM

Did anyone else hear Peter Gammons say that the most important thing of the offseason was Griffey Jr. getting healthy. Now, Griffey Jr. is a good player, but he isn't an elite anymore and is on a team that is going nowhere this year (unless he is traded). I really don't get aggravated by these clowns anymore. They have lost any credibility I have ever had for them.

Kogs35

02-27-2005, 06:57 PM

who gives a rats tushy about espn these guys r a joke i will watch starting in april cause i dont think ill be getting mlb extra innings or mlb.tv and the only good thing about that show is the updates. and remeber they picked the royals to win the central last year. they no nothing.

zach074

02-27-2005, 07:13 PM

I don't remember the twins doing anything good this offseason. Maybe these "experts" know something we don't.

SOXintheBURGH

02-27-2005, 07:16 PM

I don't remember the twins doing anything good this offseason. Maybe these "experts" know something we don't.

They considered a good off season as resigning an overrated pitcher, giving a guy an extension, and getting another guy off the DL. Whoever that GM is in Minnesota is a real genius.

Corlose 15

02-27-2005, 07:18 PM

Here's what I don't get. Gammons said the Twins had the best offseason because they got Mauer back. Why is everyone so hog wild over Joe Mauer. The guy has played 3 months of MLB. Everyone is talking about how great he is and he's done nothing. Not to say that he won't be a good major leaguer but good grief!!:(:

flo-B-flo

02-27-2005, 07:24 PM

Don't worry about what people say in February. Indeed, Gammons does ..........what for espn besides drone baseball. Let em talk. I'd love to sneak up on them all.:smile:

Soxzilla

02-27-2005, 07:27 PM

They considered a good off season as resigning an overrated pitcher, giving a guy an extension, and getting another guy off the DL. Whoever that GM is in Minnesota is a real genius.

His name is Terry Ryan, and he IS a great GM. And let's not get carried away, Santana is a fantastic pitcher...probably the best in the AL besides RJ.

But ESPN and its jesters are just a waste of space. They will see when we run away with the division.

NSSoxFan

02-27-2005, 07:50 PM

His name is Terry Ryan, and he IS a great GM. And let's not get carried away, Santana is a fantastic pitcher...probably the best in the AL besides RJ.

But ESPN and its jesters are just a waste of space. They will see when we run away with the division.

Let's hold it up for one second. I agree that Santana is a superb pitcher, without question. In 2003 he was 12-3 and backed it up last year with the Cy Young. But, let me remind you of what happened to the two pitchers that finished on top of the voting in 2003: Esteban Loaiza and Roy Halladay. Nothing is a given in baseball.

MeanFish

02-27-2005, 08:11 PM

Teams like the Twins and the Indians are getting a lot of attention from media pundits because they're riding the tidal wave caused by Billy Beane's extreme success building the Athletics of the last few years through youth development. Ever since then, whenever a team has one or two successful major league ballplayers rise out of their farm system, it becomes generalized that EVERY player developed by these teams is going to be a great major league baseball player. Both teams DO have a higher-than-average turnout of major league talent built through the farm system, so it shouldn't be surprising that people make premature, generalized comments about the "great" Joe Mauer or future league-leading first-baseman Justin Morneau. Because of the success of players like Travis Hafner and C.C. Sabathia, suddenly that means that Jhonny Peralta is as-good-or-better-than Omar Vizquel and Cliff Lee is a future top-of-the-rotation starter because he had a good half of baseball.

FightingBillini

02-27-2005, 08:32 PM

Here's what I don't get. Gammons said the Twins had the best offseason because they got Mauer back. Why is everyone so hog wild over Joe Mauer. The guy has played 3 months of MLB. Everyone is talking about how great he is and he's done nothing. Not to say that he won't be a good major leaguer but good grief!!:(:

To put things in perspective, Boston Gammons said in one of his recent articles. "Mauer and Morneau will become the best in all of baseball at their positions... if they arent already." That is an absolute joke. I guess Mauer playing 35 games of major league ball makes him better than Ivan Rodriquez, Johnny Estrada, Paul LoDuca, Jason Kendall, Benji Molina, and all the rest. Morneau is clearly the best first baseman in all of baseball, despite his .271 average. Todd Helton? He looks like a AAA player next to Morneau. Pujols? He could back Morneau up. I think Gammons throws BS like this out there every few weeks to keep up. Some fans might start to give him credibility or respect what he has to say over time, so he says stuff like that to make sure people know he is about as credible as the New York Times.

As for Mauer, I believe that Gammons thinks of Mauer and pleasures himself regularly. Boston hypes up Mauer every chance he gets. He looks like he might become a good hitter, but Gammons has been saying he will be better than Johnny Bench. That is a joke. Mauer is 21 years old and he has already had a few knee surgeries. He has 2 bad knees, not 1. When he retires, he won't be mentioned in even the top 100 catchers of all time. He has all the makings of being a career DH by age 25.

SOX ADDICT '73

02-27-2005, 08:53 PM

As for Mauer, I believe that Gammons thinks of Mauer and pleasures himself regularly.

LOL!

I guess it just ticks me off that I wasted an hour watching this turd of a show. At a time of the year when I'm starved to hear anything about the Sox on TV or radio, it's disappointing when their only mention is that "Chicagoans will get to see Sammy Sosa play at...er...what's that park called again?"
I can see the Royals not getting mentioned, but they did nothing but re-acquire Lunatic Lima. We, on the other hand, picked up a handful of former All-Stars and the next great player from Japan. You'd think they'd have something to say about that. I'm surprised they didn't at least mention the Sox during their "Worst Offseason" segment, since they will suffer so horribly for trading away Carlos and for turning their backs on Magglio.
:whatever:

MRKARNO

02-27-2005, 08:55 PM

News Flash: You can find out a lot more about baseball from a visit to websites like Baseball Prospectus, the top tier baseball blogs, and message boards such as WSI than you can from those idiots on ESPN.

batmanZoSo

02-27-2005, 09:00 PM

I could just vomit in terror. How the hell have the Twins improved more than us? In fact, how have they improved at all? Oh, because they're getting back a guy who was a rookie last year and they merely kept their two best pitchers.

:boston
Yes, those are all good points, but while the Twins haven't added much, we have very good reason to expect everyone from last year's club to get better.

The_Cheesiest_Idiot

02-27-2005, 09:10 PM

Did anyone else hear Peter Gammons say that the most important thing of the offseason was Griffey Jr. getting healthy. Now, Griffey Jr. is a good player, but he isn't an elite anymore and is on a team that is going nowhere this year (unless he is traded). I really don't get aggravated by these clowns anymore. They have lost any credibility I have ever had for them.

he ALWAYS sucks off griffey. he says the same thing EVERY spring about him being healthy....till he gets hurt of course.

ma-gaga

02-27-2005, 09:19 PM

Good lord, this thread is full of venom.

Mauer has hit since he was drafted. If his knees hold up, he's going to be a stud. Morneau has hit the snot out of the ball for the last 3 years. AND they are 21 and 24 years old with a TON of upside. I can see the "drool factor" over players like this. It's all upside, with the surface barely being scratched.

They are replacing Henry Blanco and 1/2 of Doug Mientkiewicz. That is an significant upgrade if they stay healthy. And that is the grand caveat in all of sports.

"Our healthy roster can beat your healthy roster." Almost every team says this, and only half of them are correct.

:gulp:

MRKARNO

02-27-2005, 09:22 PM

"Our healthy roster can beat your healthy roster." Almost every team says this, and only half of them are correct.

But c'mon, doesnt an offseason have to be evaluated by the moves you make? Who is congratulating the Dodgers for having Penny back and healthy? That's right, no one. Why the Twins are the only team in the majors that is getting credit for keeping players and not making moves to improve is beyond me. "They're going to be healthy" could be said about every team in the majors is right, but why are the Twins the only team in the majors getting such recognition?

ma-gaga

02-27-2005, 09:27 PM

But c'mon, doesnt an offseason have to be evaluated by the moves you make? Who is congratulating the Dodgers for having Penny back and healthy? That's right, no one. Why the Twins are the only team in the majors that is getting credit for keeping players and not making moves to improve is beyond me. "They're going to be healthy" could be said about every team in the majors is right, but why are the Twins the only team in the majors getting such recognition?

I agree, if they were congratulating the Twins on "improving", they were wrong. But I think they were just using that as an excuse to hype up certain teams. The Twins didn't do much this offseason. But they really weren't that far away from beating the MFY's. A couple of managerial misfires.

But they brought back their biggest FA in Radke, and they locked up a young guy that had a pretty good season.

Lip Man 1

02-27-2005, 09:30 PM

It amuses me that Sox fans take to heart what media types say and consider it a personal insult.

Games are won and lost on the field, not in the TV booth or newspaper office.

Plus in fairness many media types picked to Sox to do something almost yearly starting in 2001 and got burned.

As for my opinion, respect needs to be EARNED. When the Sox win something of substance they'll get their respect.

The onus right now is on the franchise to accomplish something that allows the media types to discuss it in detail.

Lip

Jjav829

02-27-2005, 11:37 PM

What's the saying? "It's deja vu all over again?" I can't help but get this feeling that this is just like in previous years. Remember last year when we were all outraged over the lack of respect the media showed the Sox? The Twins lost Hawkins and Guardado and they weren't the same team. This was going to be our year! And it wasn't. And the year before; We had Colon! That sealed the deal. The division was ours. Why were so many people picking the Twins? They didn't just acquire one of the best pitchers in the game. We did! 2003 was going to be our year! And what about 2002? Forget the Indians, the Sox were the team to beat! And what was the outcome each year? The same thing. The Sox not winning the division. And yet here we go again. The Twins have done nothing. The Indians don't have the talent. The Tigers are a joke. This is our division. Why can't the national media see that? To borrow another saying, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's the same thing all over again.

The Twins are the team to beat until further notice. They should be picked to win the division because the Sox haven't shown that they can win it. It should come as no surprise that the Sox aren't being picked to win the division. Truth be told, they probably shouldn't. The Twins have proved themselves to be the better team. Or should we start breaking the teams down on paper again? Because that's worked so well in previous years.

SoupAppling

02-27-2005, 11:38 PM

Under the radar, folks.

Exactly what I was thinking. Under the radar.

I can't wait for opening day.

DumpJerry

02-27-2005, 11:50 PM

The sad fact is if the Sox go 161-1 and win the WS with an undefeated offseaon, the "experts" as ESPN et al will say the Sox backed into it because the Red Sox and Yankees had some problems this season. They will also harp on the one loss as proof that the Sox as not so good.

As long as the Cubs are in Chicago, the Sox will not get respect from the media.

SOX ADDICT '73

02-28-2005, 12:10 AM

What's the saying? "It's deja vu all over again?" I can't help but get this feeling that this is just like in previous years. Remember last year when we were all outraged over the lack of respect the media showed the Sox? The Twins lost Hawkins and Guardado and they weren't the same team. This was going to be our year! And it wasn't. And the year before; We had Colon! That sealed the deal. The division was ours. Why were so many people picking the Twins? They didn't just acquire one of the best pitchers in the game. We did! 2003 was going to be our year! And what about 2002? Forget the Indians, the Sox were the team to beat! And what was the outcome each year? The same thing. The Sox not winning the division. And yet here we go again. The Twins have done nothing. The Indians don't have the talent. The Tigers are a joke. This is our division. Why can't the national media see that? To borrow another saying, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's the same thing all over again.

The Twins are the team to beat until further notice. They should be picked to win the division because the Sox haven't shown that they can win it. It should come as no surprise that the Sox aren't being picked to win the division. Truth be told, they probably shouldn't. The Twins have proved themselves to be the better team. Or should we start breaking the teams down on paper again? Because that's worked so well in previous years.
100% true, but...OW! Did ya hafta just rip the band-aid off like that?:wink:

HebrewHammer

02-28-2005, 12:28 AM

Seriously, I'm done with BT. I'll be getting my highlights from ESPN News this year. Kruk and Reynolds have turned this show into a joke. If I hear one more speech from Kruk talking about "respecting the game" or "how the game should be played," I'm going to throw up.

FightingBillini

02-28-2005, 12:30 AM

What's the saying? "It's deja vu all over again?" I can't help but get this feeling that this is just like in previous years. Remember last year when we were all outraged over the lack of respect the media showed the Sox? The Twins lost Hawkins and Guardado and they weren't the same team. This was going to be our year! And it wasn't. And the year before; We had Colon! That sealed the deal. The division was ours. Why were so many people picking the Twins? They didn't just acquire one of the best pitchers in the game. We did! 2003 was going to be our year! And what about 2002? Forget the Indians, the Sox were the team to beat! And what was the outcome each year? The same thing. The Sox not winning the division. And yet here we go again. The Twins have done nothing. The Indians don't have the talent. The Tigers are a joke. This is our division. Why can't the national media see that? To borrow another saying, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." It's the same thing all over again.

The Twins are the team to beat until further notice. They should be picked to win the division because the Sox haven't shown that they can win it. It should come as no surprise that the Sox aren't being picked to win the division. Truth be told, they probably shouldn't. The Twins have proved themselves to be the better team. Or should we start breaking the teams down on paper again? Because that's worked so well in previous years.

I agree with you to a certain extent. We were a better team that the Twins the last two years, they just won. The Sox didn't show that they could win the division. We had more talent, we were better at more positions that them, but they were a team, and they showed that they could win. They could close (and I dont just mean games). The Twins didnt fall apart late in the season. The Twins didn't have an inconsistent all or nothing offense that always seemed to swing and miss in the big games.

However, we are not talking about the same White Sox. We are talking about a team with much much more pitching, a legitimate 5th starter (Garland), a legitimate closer, and 4 others in the bullpen with closing experience. This is a team that is faster and has less all or nothing hitters. This is a team that will be great defensively. They also addressed the gaping whole at catcher by signing one of the best in baseball. This also is a new manager. I know Ozzie was here last year, but he was working with another man's team. This is his team, his philosophy, and his players. Everything's changed.

I think the point of this thread was not that the Sox were picked to finish 3rd or 4th, it was that we werent even mentioned among the most improved teams, and somehow the Twins "improved" by adding nobody. No matter what ESPN says, the Sox had among the best offseason, and most likely THE single best offseason. For them to not mention the Sox in that context is ridiculous. I agree that the Twins shouldnt be written off. Im not angry that nobody is picking us to win the division. But for "experts" to look at the AL central and say that anyone even came close to improving as much as we did, let alone improved more than us, is horrible journalism. These are the fools who are picking the Cubs to compete with no bullpen and one of the worst outfields in recent memory.

A.T. Money

02-28-2005, 01:03 AM

LOL!

I guess it just ticks me off that I wasted an hour watching this turd of a show. At a time of the year when I'm starved to hear anything about the Sox on TV or radio, it's disappointing when their only mention is that "Chicagoans will get to see Sammy Sosa play at...er...what's that park called again?"
I can see the Royals not getting mentioned, but they did nothing but re-acquire Lunatic Lima. We, on the other hand, picked up a handful of former All-Stars and the next great player from Japan. You'd think they'd have something to say about that. I'm surprised they didn't at least mention the Sox during their "Worst Offseason" segment, since they will suffer so horribly for trading away Carlos and for turning their backs on Magglio.
:whatever:

:tealpolice:

ChiSox14305635

02-28-2005, 01:16 AM

Of course, the real question is would you have been surprised if ESPN did mention the Sox in a positive note. Business as usual for the boys on the East Coast. Don't let it get to you.

FightingBillini

02-28-2005, 01:18 AM

:tealpolice:

You can go home, Teal Police. Somebody filed a false report.

Here is the ruling:
:millslane
"Teal stands!"

SOX ADDICT '73

02-28-2005, 01:35 AM

Thanks, Billini. I thought maybe my Sarcastometer was on the fritz again.

Cubbiesuck13

02-28-2005, 01:55 AM

The sad fact is if the Sox go 161-1 and win the WS with an undefeated offseaon, the "experts" as ESPN et al will say the Sox backed into it because the Red Sox and Yankees had some problems this season. They will also harp on the one loss as proof that the Sox as not so good.

As long as the Cubs are in Chicago, the Sox will not get respect from the media.

I have waited my whole life to hear that the Sox backed into the playoffs and won the world series. I promise I won't complain when they say it!

The only thing that bothers me about this is that they did not mention all the moves we made. We were the most active team this offseason. If it turns out to be good or not has yet to be seen so I have no problem with picking everyone, inlcuding the Royals ahead of us. It makes no matter what they say but it would be nice if we got some publicity for revamping the team.